Delhi High Court – Orders
C.V.M.P. Ezhilarasan vs State Of Nct Delhi Through Sho on 23 March, 2026
Author: Anup Jairam Bhambhani
Bench: Anup Jairam Bhambhani
$~81
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 1337/2026
C.V.M.P. EZHILARASAN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Vivek Singh, Ms. Saumya
Saraswat, Ms. Saushkriya, Advocates.
versus
STATE OF NCT DELHI THROUGH SHO .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Richa Dhawan, APP for the
State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
ORDER
% 23.03.2026
CRL.M.A. 5351/2026
Exemption granted, subject to just exceptions.
Let requisite compliances be made within 01 week.
The application stands disposed-of.
CRL.M.C. 1337/2026 & CRL.M.A. 5350/2026 (stay)
By way of the present petition filed under section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (‘BNSS’), the petitioner
seeks quashing of case FIR No.32/2025 dated 06.02.2025 registered
under section 223(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’) at
P.S.: Parliament Street, New Delhi, and all consequential proceedings
arising therefrom.
2. Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits, that their challenge to the subject FIR is premised
on the following two grounds:
CRL.M.C. 1337/2026 Page 1 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 21:29:16
2.1. First, that the ingredients of the offence under section 223(a) of
the BNS are not made-out; and
2.2. Second, that in any case, the FIR could not have been registered
on an allegation of an offence under section 223(a)of the BNS in
view of section 215(1)(a)(i) of the BNSS.
3. Substantiating the first ground of challenge, learned senior counsel
submits, that the brief factual matrix of the matter is that the petitioner,
as Secretary of the Students Wing of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
(‘DMK’) party, had sought permission from the concerned police and
administrative authorities for organising a peaceful demonstration at
Jantar Mantar, New Delhi on 06.02.2025 against the then introduced
new UGC Draft Guidelines, 2025.
4. It is submitted, that though some paperwork had been undertaken by
the petitioner with the concerned SHO and the Commissioner of Police,
no final word was received by the petitioner in writing from the
administrative authorities; but at a meeting between the Members of
Parliament of DMK and the Commissioner of Police held on
05.02.2025, the latter had granted oral permission to the petitioner to
conduct the peaceful demonstration; and had directed the SHO, P.S.:
Parliament Street, New Delhi, to provide necessary arrangements and
police protection.
5. Mr. Tiwari points-out however, that it later transpired, that on the date
and time when the demonstration was held, the Model Code of
Conduct was in operation; and, unbeknownst to the petitioner,
prohibitory orders under section 163 of the BNSS were in force in that
area.
CRL.M.C. 1337/2026 Page 2 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 21:29:16
6. It is pointed-out that on a perusal of the FIR, it would show that the
petitioner is alleged to have committed the offence under section 223 of
the BNS, namely the offence of disobedience of an order promulgated
by a public servant; and the order that is alleged to be the subject of
disobedience was an order purported to have been promulgated under
section 163 of the BNSS.
7. It is argued, that section 163 of the BNSS requires an order to be issued
by the District Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or an
Executive Magistrate (specially empowered) in writing, directing a
person to abstain from a certain act, to prevent obstruction, annoyance
or injury to any person lawfully employed or to prevent danger to
human life, health or safety or disturbance of public tranquility, riot or
affray.
8. It is argued, that no order under section 163 of the BNSS was ever
passed as required in writing, nor was any such order served upon the
petitioner as required under section 153 of the BNSS. Besides, it is
argued that section 223 of the BNS requires that the person against
whom the offence is invoked should have knowingly disobeyed such
order, lawfully promulgated; and if the disobedience causes or tends to
cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or the risk thereof, to any
person lawfully employed or to prevent danger to human life, health or
safety or disturbance of public tranquility, riot or affray.
9. In any event, learned senior counsel submits, that mere disobedience of
an order promulgated by a public servant is not, in and of itself, an
offence under section 223(a) of the BNS, since a bare reading of the
provision would show that it is necessary that such disobedience causes
CRL.M.C. 1337/2026 Page 3 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 21:29:16
or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of
obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed or
to prevent danger to human life, health or safety or disturbance of
public tranquility, riot or affray, none of which is even alleged to have
happened in the present case. It is argued that a perusal of the subject
FIR would itself show, that there is no allegation that the peaceful
protest held by the petitioner and his associates caused any obstruction,
annoyance, or injury, or the risk of any of it.
10. In support of his submissions, learned senior counsel has drawn
attention to a decision of a Division Bench of this court in Bhoop
Singh Tyagi vs. State, 1 to point-out that ingredients of the offence
under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [corresponding to
section 223 of the BNS] have been parsed-out in the said decision,
where the court has clarified that for alleging that a person has
disobeyed an order of a public servant, it must be shown that the person
had knowledge of such order; and that the disobedience caused, or
there was risk that it would cause, obstruction, annoyance, or injury as
referred-to above.
11. Learned senior counsel submits, that in view of the run of events as
narrated above, the petitioner could not be attributed to have had any
knowledge that he was disobeying any lawfully promulgated order.
12. In support of his second contention, senior counsel argues, that the
factual matrix apart, section 215(1)(a)(i) of the BNSS clearly precludes
a court from taking cognizance of the offence inter-alia under section
1
2002 SCC OnLine Del 277
CRL.M.C. 1337/2026 Page 4 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 21:29:16
223 of the BNS except on a complaint in writing of the concerned
public servant or of an administrative subordinate of such public
servant.
13. In support of this submission, learned senior counsel draws attention to
the decision of the Supreme Court in C. Muniappan & Ors. vs. State of
Tamil Nadu2 and of a Co-ordinate Bench of the Madras High Court in
Jeevanandham & Ors. v. State rep. by Inspector of Police & Anr.,3 to
submit that on a combined reading of the said decisions, it is evident
that where a court is not empowered to take cognizance of an offence
under section 223(a) of the BNS [corresponding to section 188 of the
IPC] in view of the bar contained in section 215(1)(a)(i) of the BNSS
[corresponding to section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973] without a complaint in writing by the concerned
public servant, the police also cannot register an FIR under section
223(a) of the BNS, regardless of the fact that the offence in itself may
be cognizable.
14. Attention in drawn to the relevant portion of the decision of the
Supreme Court in C. Muniappan, which reads as follows :
“33. Thus, in view of the above, the law can be summarised
to the effect that there must be a complaint by the public servant
whose lawful order has not been complied with. The complaint must
be in writing. The provisions of Section 195 CrPC are mandatory.
Non-compliance with it would vitiate the prosecution and all other
consequential orders. The court cannot assume the cognizance of
the case without such complaint. In the absence of such a2
(2010) 9 SCC 567
3
2018 SCC OnLine Mad 13698CRL.M.C. 1337/2026 Page 5 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 21:29:16
complaint, the trial and conviction will be void ab initio being
without jurisdiction.”
(emphasis supplied)
15. Furthermore, the relevant portion of the decision of a Co-ordinate
Bench of the Madras High Court in Jeevanandham reads as follows :
“20. Therefore, it is very clear from the above judgments
that there must be a complaint by a public servant, who is lawfully
empowered, whose lawful order has not been complied with. The
provisions of Section 195 of Cr.P.C are mandatory and non-
compliance, with it, will make the entire process void ab initio,
being without jurisdiction.”
“21. The submission of the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor to the effect that Section 188 of IPC is a cognizable
offence, and therefore, the Police Officer is entitled to proceed
under Section 154, 156 and 157 of Cr.P.C, is not sustainable. The
offence being cognizable by itself, does not enable the Police
Officer to register an FIR for an offence under Section 188 of
IPC. The reason being, such registration of an FIR has to
necessarily end with a Police Report under Section 173(2) of
Cr.P.C, which is specifically barred under Section 195 of Cr.P.C.
The definition of a complaint under Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. itself
makes it clear that a complaint does not include a Police Report.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has gone to the extent of saying that
such a Final Report, which is taken cognizance will make the
entire proceedings void ab initio which would necessarily mean
that the registration of the FIR for an offence under Section 188
of IPC will also become void.”
(emphasis supplied)
16. It is argued, that as enunciated by the learned Single Judge of the
Madras High Court, the registration of an FIR would necessarily end in
the filing of a police report, the cognizance of which is barred under
section 215(1)(a)(i) of the BNSS.
CRL.M.C. 1337/2026 Page 6 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 21:29:16
17. Learned senior counsel submits, that on both the aforesaid counts, the
subject FIR could not have been registered; and no investigation can be
carried-on.
18. Issue notice.
19. Ms. Richa Dhawan, learned APP appears on behalf of the State on
advance copy; accepts notice; and seeks time to file status report.
20. Let status report be filed within 06 weeks; rejoinder thereto, if any, be
filed within 04 weeks thereafter; with copies to the opposing counsel.
21. Re-notify on 12th August 2026.
22. On a prima-facie view of the matter, considering the arguments made
and the judicial precedents cited, and in particular in light of the
provision of section 215(1)(a)(i) of the BNSS, further investigation and
proceedings in case FIR No.32/2025 dated 06.02.2025 registered under
section 223(a) of the BNS at P.S.: Parliament Street, New Delhi, shall
remain stayed, till the next date of hearing before this court.
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J
MARCH 23, 2026
ds
CRL.M.C. 1337/2026 Page 7 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 21:29:16